Poll: The Reputation System (Likes)

Despite the fact I have zero likes so a weak reputation, I think it is a good system because it shows the quality of a user. I remember when under the username appeared the total amount of posts and I guess this system just puts out how active you are but not the worth.

I think it's worth letting the experiment run its course, but I don't imagine it will improve anything. I'm guessing the thinking is that it will act as a psychological nudge, to influence posters to write better quality posts by making them a little more self-conscious? Which makes some sense. However the same mechanism will make posters less apt to post well-written but unpopular content, which would be a net loss imo. Or to make them seem unpopular, less respected, therefore giving their posts less weight. It also favours longevity and frequency over quality. And... It's a philosophy forum. We're predisposed to look down on social media antics :) But still worth testing it out I reckon.

Like in the last forum, it will be used as an 'I agree with that' button. Or a 'yeah you show that dickhead' button. It won't indicate quality particularly. Just how popular the things you say are.

Quoting jamalrob

I don't know if we've given the functionality enough of a chance--ideally it should begin to indicate those members who make good contributions and who have been around for a while--but I'm interested to know what you think about it.

Quoting bert1

Like in the last forum, it will be used as an 'I agree with that' button. Or a 'yeah you show that dickhead' button. It won't indicate quality particularly. Just how popular the tings you say are.

Yes I agree, it doesn't necessarily indicate quality, but popularity one would think.

I could do without the function, but don't mind it that much either.

Quoting Kenosha Kid

I'm guessing the thinking is that it will act as a psychological nudge, to influence posters to write better quality posts by making them a little more self-conscious?

Yes, I was thinking along those lines. It could stand in for the social pressure that in real life motivates you to behave well and present your best.

Quoting Kenosha Kid

However the same mechanism will make posters less apt to post well-written but unpopular content, which would be a net loss imo. Or to make them seem unpopular, less respected, therefore giving their posts less weight. It also favours longevity and frequency over quality.

Good points.

Quoting jamalrob

It could stand in for the social pressure that in real life motivates you to behave well and present your best.

*tsk tsk*
That would work in a fair, democratic system where all the members would clearly, openly agree to jointly work toward a common goal (and one that would be for the greater good, at that).

A discussion forum like this isn't like that.

For one, there is no clear goal to work toward. There's just stuff going on all over the place, quite a bit doesn't even have anything to do with philosophy, but more with looking cool and being admired for it.

For two, a discussion forum like this is more like a country club, run by a bunch of old boys who exert their pressure mostly indirectly. This pressure inspires posters to behave themselves only inasmuch as they fear when the other shoe will drop, and not out of concern for quality. IOW, here, the pressure to "behave well and present one's best" is too dispersed, too random, too intangible to be conducive to behaving well and presenting one's best.

I like that there isn't a downvote option. If there was I would definitely say get rid of it. I've felt slightly displeased by its existence, but decided that honestly it doesn't really matter. If I had a bigger number my opinion would probably be different. If nobody but oneself could see one's score, I'd definitely say keep it.

Anonymity makes it cliquish rather than remotely indicative of quality. I also think the lack of down-vote makes the feature worthless. Ideally I'd prefer a grading feature whereby member could grade each other's posts 1 to 5 with the grader's handle next to it and, up near the member's handle, an average grade next to the current number of posts graded (and not just the total number of posts made). Maybe also, the average grade is also equal to the number times (no rounding 1-5x) in 1 hour period a member can grade other members' posts.

e.g.

180 Proof
837 (3.7)

[ this post ]

2 - Wayfarer
3 - Banno
4 - Maw
1 - Noble Dust

:nerd: Only the most recent grade shows, but hold cursor over it and maybe the last ten are unveiled. Something like that is what I'd prefer to see. I've no idea whether or not this site can manifest these features or if it's even worth it to do so.

Assuming it's not, I vote to do away with this clique click.

I think that grading people's posts as @180 Proof suggests would be far worse than the likes system because it would be time consuming and complicated. It really would be like being back at school too. I like @Pfhorrests idea of the likes being seen by us as individuals personally rather than everyone, like 'followers' is. While I see problems with the likes system, I have in the last few days been trying to click on posts which I think are good to try to acknowledge them.

While people are talking about the likes, no one has mentioned the other new feature, 'trending', which I think is extremely useful. That is because when I log on I feel able to catch some fairly good posts without having to read many threads.

Generally, I think that all the different ways of evaluating from likes, trending and most viewed are all different ways of evaluating on the site. Of course, people are able to give feedback in replies, although it may be that posts which are more disagreeable will get more responses. As far as the distinction between popularity and quality, it is a bit tricky because they are separate but overlap, as a problem which arises in all measures, such as bestseller charts.

Quoting jamalrob

What should we do with the reputation system?

I think that you'd first need to decide what you want this forum to be like, what direction it should develop in.
For some purposes, the reputation system is good, for others it's not, as already mentioned in the above posts. It all depends on what you want with the forum, what purpose it should serve, what goal it should ty to attain.

I don't know what the stakeholders' vision for this forum is, so I can't vote.

Either way seems fine to me. It's just one of those things where you get positives and negatives regardless of your decision, and I don't see them as really outweighing each other.

In favor: It's nice that there's a way to express how you feel about a particular post without having to post a "me too!" if you feel you really have nothing to add.

But I wouldn't treat it much more beyond that. It's more akin to a social media style expression -- which forums are basically the long form, anonymous version of anyways -- than a sign of quality, I think. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Philosophers need to be social after all :D

So, imo, it's more important to just bare in mind what a like really means and what it entails than anything.

Reply to Jack Cummins Tell me how giving a post a single whole number 1-5 is any more "time consuming and complicated" than clicking an up-vote. I'm must be missing something because I don't see it.

I'm not sure I want people to like my posts.

Quoting bert1

I'm not sure I want people to like my posts.

Then I promise to never like your posts.

Reply to jamalrob

I quite like it, it adds another element to the people-watching.

Not sure how it will achieve anything desirable though. Presuming there'd be a motivation to get high scores (not a given, but let's assume it for now), a poster would have to align their posts with one or more of the popular factions, yes? But since you clearly have more than one popular faction, all this could lead to is an increase in polemic arguments, I don't know, but I'm not sure that's what you want is it?

Reply to Isaac Yes. The forum's stakeholders need to decide on the direction in which they want the forum to go.

Meh. I try to focus on what was said and not who said it. That said, I will develop a sense, over time, of who is a waste of time. But I rarely care if others think others are a waste of time or not; unless, the aforementioned sense tells me that X's opinion of Y might be worth paying attention to. But I'll not get that from a rating system. I'll get it from what was said.

Reply to James Riley Always when reading your posts, I try to figure out why you have a Taxi Driver reference in your avatar. I just don't get it.

Reply to baker

It's a good thing I don't live in a city. :grin:

Reply to Michael Quoting Michael

Then I promise to never like your posts.

Oh, dear. I've changed my mind. I want you to like them!

I think three options might be good, and not anonymous. 'Agree', 'disagree', and 'I don't understand this post'.

Quoting bert1

Oh, dear. I've changed my mind. I want you to like them!

I'm sorry, but I made a promise not to like them and I never break my promises. Kant demands it!

I personally think the feature is worthless. It had no noticeable positive effect in the past and it doesn't now. Twitter and Facebook have like options too and we can all see how much that has done for quality.

I could go either way. I'm not sure if the member that gets an upvote is told which post and who marked it up. Maybe someone knows?

I used it in the former forum mostly because I could miss one day of reading the daily Philosophy words and the thread would have such an onslaught of posts before I could respond that it was easier to upvote the member that posted my thoughts already.
Satire, comedy and absurdity work that way the world over which is why @Banno sounds so witty. Of course he does because he gets a 16 hour jump on the day. :eyes:

Reply to 180 Proof
I am not ruling out your idea of giving a post a figure from 1 to 5, but I just think that often, people skim through threads and would probably not bother with marking systems.

But, I keep an open mind really because I wish the site to be the best possible discussion site. I often feel that the best way is to write only a certain number of posts in oneday, to avoid writing gobbledegook. But, of course, it is not that straightforward because, sometimes, we may have a queue of comments awaiting replies and, on some days, we may have more time and more creative inspiration.

The current implementation makes it relatively useless and somewhat confusing in my view. I vote to turn it off.

Reply to Baden
I think that it may make life a lot simpler for us all rather than discussion about how we rate or grade people's comments.

At worst it's harmless, so I would say let it run long enough to be used. I didn't notice how to actually implement it prior to looking for it. Then, maybe compare the likes to say the ratio of comments and replies to see if it tracks well. A "good" poster is one that inspires discussion and I suppose a poor one just litters all over the place, so the ratio should be relevant. I imagine there's other metrics as well.

Can I "like" my own posts? If so, how many times can I do so? Just wondering.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

Can I "like" my own posts?

Yes you can.

I tend to be kind of dubious about the system serving as an incentive for producing "better" posts. There must be other ways of doing that. And if the poll has only collected 30 votes, this may indicate that there is no great interest in it anyway (unless there isn't a great deal of active members :smile:). So, I would vote to turn it off.

Reply to jamalrob

The system won't work on those who prefer to lose their reputation. ;-) They actually work towards that end. Then the fun of slapping yellowbelly wannabe bullies and scat loving trolls is doubled. Perhaps another way of looking at it is, any value in approvals from the valueless, has no value. But maybe your efforts are apprenticed by some.

Quoting Cheshire

Then, maybe compare the likes to say the ratio of comments and replies to see if it tracks well. A "good" poster is one that inspires discussion and I suppose a poor one just litters all over the place, so the ratio should be relevant.

If it tracks well, then comments and replies would be sufficient metrics (which we already have).

@jamalrob. Strikes me the question is quite easily resolved. Let it run for another week or so, then take a look at the post history of the folk with the most likes. If they're the kind of posts/posters you want to encourage, the system works: if they're not, the system doesn't work.

Quoting Isaac

Let it run for another week or so, then take a look at the post history of the folk with the most likes. If they're the kind of posts/posters you want to encourage, the system works: if they're not, the system doesn't work.

How do you propose to guard aganist subversion and sabotage?

Quoting baker

How do you propose to guard aganist subversion and sabotage?

I don't know, I'm not familiar with the site code. If anyone can be arsed to actually game the likes on a niche internet forum then good luck to them.

I think the like score is unclear and misreading. Since likes are not offset by dislikes, the metric is cumulative, so it mixes several unrelated factors into one score: duration, frequency, plus whatever else induces likes. That whatever else is itself a mixed bag, in which post quality probably isn't even at the top. And yet "quality" is how the metric would often be interpreted.

Reply to jamalrob

People like things for a lot of reasons and quality or truth is rarely one of them. The popularity of an opinion isn’t a good measure of its veracity or validity anyways.

It seems to me “Reputation system” is an odious term, something like certain governments would do.

I like being able to hit a “like” button to show appreciation for someones post because just chiming in with a post that says “well said” or something seems awkward for both parties.

What if we called it the "peripheral agreement" button?

I'd like to see whether there is a direct correlation between "turn it off" votes and those with a low number of positive votes.

So for those with low up votes, if you've grown tired of being looked down upon,, what you should do is delegitimitize the system by casting meaningless up votes. As in. like right now, vote for me over and over. That way you can defend your own low up votes by saying, "Yeah, but up votes are bullshit. Hanover got them by leading a ridiculous rebellion."

We should give bonus abilities to people with high votes, like you can ban anybody you want for a week.

LOWER TAXES, BETTER JOBS, FREE CHILDCARE.

VOTE NOW. VOTE OFTEN. VOTE HANOVER!

I voted to get rid of it, but it's not a big issue with me. However you decide will be fine.

NOTICE MEEEEEE!!!!

Reply to jamalrob

I think the whole idea of rating is useless for this forum. We're (hopefully) here to discuss things -- it's not a popularity contest. When it turns into that, it becomes Twitter and Facebook.

I kinda like it. I especially like that it's only positive and not negative (no downvotes). I do miss seeing postcounts tho. Wish there was a way to show both. Makes it harder to pick users out.

Quoting jamalrob

I turned on the reputation system a while ago to see what would happen

So, why the need now for this particular experiment ? Hasn't it been discussed in the past ?
What has changed ? Is there a problem or a pressing issue that needs to be addressed ?

Quoting jamalrob

I don't know if we've given the functionality enough of a chance--ideally it should begin to indicate those members who make good contributions and who have been around for a while--but I'm interested to know what you think about it.

'Ideally' - but it isn't ideal, is it ? How can a mere uptick on a post show that the writer of the post makes 'good contributions' ? What makes a person 'like' a post by another poster ? Clearly, it involves more than a 'quality' issue.
As for the quantity of posts and time served on TPF, these can be seen on any poster's profile page.
That is about quantity not quality.

So this 'reputation system' is questionable to say the least.
A 'reputation' for what...?

Quoting jamalrob

Now comments can be liked (upvoted) by other members,

Is this the way forward ? I hope not.
What are your intentions for TPF - to become like Facebook ?

Quoting jamalrob

What should we do with the reputation system?

I vote to turn it off.

And perhaps think again about why there might be a 'quality' issue.
Be pragmatic. Follow a process to reach some kind of a solution.
If this is the first step...now what ?

Different strokes for different folks. Waiter, I'll have the usual.

Reply to StreetlightX That's kind of how I feel about it too.

Quoting Amity

What are your intentions for TPF - to become like Facebook ?

People keep going on about Facebook. But there's more to the internet than Facebook et al, and I think there are more relevant comparisons and models. Reputations, upvoting, downvoting and so on are used on other, more interesting websites, sometimes to good effect. There are many social platforms that use something like a reputation system, where it seems to work. Reddit and things like Physics Forums spring to mind, and anything that uses Discourse or Stack Exchange, e.g., the Codecademy Forums or Philosophy Stack Exchange. Of course, that functionality is richer, and the latter is more of a Q&A site, but still.

And the idea, implied by others here, that philosophy, whether on or offline, has hitherto been--or should be--free of accolades, status indicators, social pressure, and so on, strikes me as naive.

Quoting Isaac

Strikes me the question is quite easily resolved. Let it run for another week or so, then take a look at the post history of the folk with the most likes. If they're the kind of posts/posters you want to encourage, the system works: if they're not, the system doesn't work.

Sounds good. Then I could drop this pretence of democracy. :wink:

By the way everyone, since this software we're using is basically just Vanilla, it might be worth quoting what they say about their reputation system:

[quote=Vanilla]Reputation is an important concept in online communities because it lets community members and moderators know who can be trusted and it allows members, who have invested their time and effort into building the community, accumulate reputation capital which can bring real-world benefits such as influence or employment opportunities.

An engaged community is one where people are creating content and interacting with each other in a meaningful way. [...]
[quote]
https://blog.vanillaforums.com/product/vanilla-forums-reputation-system

One issue is that the icon to like a post is hidden by default unless you hover over the post (on desktop) or click the post twice (on mobile), so I think for the most part it's going to go unused except by those who know specifically to look for it.

Quoting Amity

What are your intentions for TPF - to become like Facebook ?

I can respect that concern. So, putting all things aside, including the warranted belief that 'likes' as it were simply show the majority sentiment or viewpoint of a given demographic (this forum) .. as well as the fact it may skew one's own final interpretation as well as replies (shiny objects, projected authority, it's why managers wear suits and the new employees just have shirts, it has a real effect on our extremely susceptible influence.. but did post count not?) .. as well as simulated (non organic) likes (which I doubt would be a problem here) .. all that aside.

We get down to a question of post count vs. likes. Many of the criticisms are actually shared by the two. I see someone with 2k+ posts, I'm naturally inclined to read and dwell more on those arguments than say that of a new poster, "village elder" effect. Which is actually foolish (to do so as automatic policy for obvious reasons). In fact, one could say it's actually more "free", fair and balanced as it were. Someone who is on par with a poster who has been posting for years and has thousands of posts can now be on the same "social" level if they can so prove it. Which eliminates "newcomer" stigma. But of course, you can simply click on a profile to see which seems to make the difference minute.

It's a difficult question. Unless you pass it off as just about meaningless and little more than an aesthetic change of environment which most people seem to at least appreciate if not only as a transient event.

That said for newcomers to this site the allure of a philosopher with say thousands of posts as opposed to "a like or two" can be quite intriguing. It was for me. To summarize, In my opinion a semi-advanced philosopher with something to contribute probably wouldn't base any worthwhile thought or action on either.

I've been on another forum that combined likes with a short private message. I once wrote a really long post that I put a lot of time and thought in. I got a like. It was a nice feeling. I got it for an obscure reference buried somewhere in a paragraph I'd made entirely by accident. If someone were to like one of my posts here I wouldn't have that sort of information. I can't decide whether that's a good or a bad thing. Human psychology, huh?

Quoting jamalrob

We can't fine-tune it

Nah, you could. I could, at least. While it would be complicated (yet far from unfeasible) to add an option in the user CP to choose which to display as preference.. these things usually have central templates or pages of code that are easily modified. Of course, like all created things you modify them at your own risk. If you do decide to do so, make sure you save a pre-modified backup.

Like, simply adding the likes to accent the post count or vice versa ie. 1.2k (0) or even showing both, if not changing the mouseover text to show either likes or posts. Which would be a nice advancement.

Quoting Outlander

Nah, you could. I could, at least.

This is not self-hosted software, so I don't see how.

Quoting jamalrob

People keep going on about Facebook. But there's more to the internet than Facebook

Indeed. So, what is your response to the first part of my quote:

Quoting Amity

What are your intentions for TPF

Quoting jamalrob

There are many social platforms that use something like a reputation system, where it seems to work. Reddit and things like Physics Forums spring to mind, and anything that uses Discourse or Stack Exchange, e.g., the Codecademy Forums or Philosophy Stack Exchange.

Interesting links.
I had a quick look at the Physics Forum. Picked on this thread to see how the 'Reputations System' operates:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/has-all-the-good-music-been-played-copied-completed.979403/

So, it looks more informative and useful than the simple 'like' function currently on offer at TPF.
You can see the poster's 'status' and who 'liked' a post.

Also, the Codecademy has a most clear and helpful 'How to Get Started' thread.
https://discuss.codecademy.com/t/how-to-use-the-codecademy-community-forums/78832

Quoting The Codecademy Community

New users are somewhat limited for safety reasons. As you participate here, you’ll gain the trust of the community, become a full citizen, and those limitations will automatically be removed. At a high enough trust level, you’ll gain even more abilities to help us manage our community together.

Note that some posting options will only become unlocked as your Trust level increases. Be sure you use the Search box to look for answers and browse through other posts to get a feel for our Community before you start posting. Getting to Trust Level 1 is pretty easy. Learn more about Trust Levels here.

https://discuss.codecademy.com/t/user-trust-levels/6442

I am not sure if this is the kind of thing that you are looking for?
As things stand, we pretty much use our own judgement...a mix of subjective and objective...

I think TPF quality could be increased by careful editing of e.g. 'Useful Hints and Tips'.
Welcoming, encouraging and keeping New Readers or Posters - I think that would be a good start.

I think that you have quite the challenge ahead of you :cool:
Best wishes.

From oasis to cess pool, in one tweak. :roll:

I don't like it.
But now that it is in operation, I am curious how many receivers of hearts are givers of them as well. Maybe one can have the numbers side by side, a token economy of imagined love.

@Baden 82 - Hanover 73 and closing in fast. Is that my footsteps you hear?

Quoting jamalrob

Sounds good. Then I could drop this pretence of democracy.

Quoting Hanover

Hanover 73 and closing in fast. Is that my footsteps you hear?

I don't know who mentioned it but note that you can in fact see who has upvoted a post, by hovering over the number to the left of the heart icon.

EDIT: unless that's just mods and admins.

Et tu, Tiff. :cry:

Quoting jamalrob

unless that's just mods and admins.

Ummm yeah only you can see it!
@Baden

Quoting frank

We should give bonus abilities to people with high votes

Yeeeees!

Quoting frank

like you can ban anybody you want for a week.

Noooooo!

You were off to a good start... :smile:

Quoting jamalrob

And the idea, implied by others here, that philosophy, whether on or offline, has hitherto been--or should be--free of accolades, status indicators, social pressure, and so on, strikes me as naive.

And it strikes me as naive to believe adding a like button is beneficial in any way. What’s the goal, exactly? What does it tell you? What is it encouraging?

I’ll tell you: it encourages posts to become a series of one-liners. You can find that in a YouTube comment section too.

If we want to encourage turning everyone into Henny Youngman, so be it.

How many posts someone has made is more informative. I hope you resist the temptation and turn it off.

Quoting jamalrob

Sounds good. Then I could drop this pretence of democracy. :wink:

Yeah.

I'm not sure if I'm the one who's missed the point or if everyone else has, but there's loads of discussion above about improving quality (and whether the 'likes' function will successfully do so). Reading through Jamalrob's original post, I see no mention at all of quality. I didn't read the feature as having anything at all to do with quality.

We're not writing a treatise here, this isn't a grand scheme to finally discover what actually is the Truth™ (God help us if it is). It's a social exercise. Who's of value to the community by virtue of their contributions is a perfectly valid metric in that game, we're measuring their contribution to the social enterprise, not global philosophy.

Quoting Hanover

82 - Hanover 73 and closing in fast. Is that my footsteps you hear?

Another point. I think we should start over at zero so the old guys don't feel all superior.

Reply to T Clark We all started from zero a few days ago, I think.

I voted to turn it off, but I really don't care.

On the Surfer Magazine forum, you get a notification when someone likes your post, and the name(s) of those who've liked a post is shown at the bottom of the post. That is good feedback. There's no notification on this platform and members don't know what posts are liked, and they don't know who liked their posts. Pretty useless feedback. I think it's much more useful to show the post count.

Reply to jamalrob
My hovering of the cursor only produces a jerky circular movement of the cursor.

Quoting jamalrob

I don't know if we've given the functionality enough of a chance--ideally it should begin to indicate those members who make good contributions and who have been around for a while--but I'm interested to know what you think about it.

We'll know the mod team is interested in quality content when they start creating some.

Quoting Windbag

We'll know the mod team is interested in quality content when they start creating some.

:lol:

[quote=Windbag]Could someone please direct us to quality content philosophical threads by the mods?[/quote]

Wittgenstein, Dummett, and anti-realism
Lottery paradox
The Raven Paradox
The simulation argument and the Boltzmann brain paradox
The problem with the problem of free will
The Pinocchio Paradox
Agreement and truth
The problem with essentialism
The metaphysical implications of disquotationalism
On reference

The best thing about the reputation stuff is that I can now channel my inner YouTube content creator and end every post with "don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe!"

See ya guys, and don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe!

I do not 'like' the like system.

Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff

I could go either way.

Noted, but what do you think of the reputation system?

Eh, I will just say what I said in a similar thread months back on a like/dislike system, which is that I think such a system would be counterproductive for intellectual discussions on here since it would get in the way of the exchange of ideas. People may just see likes and dislikes as a substitute for actual replying to a certain point made, and people may be inclined to ignore someone or hold their opinion in high regard simply due to the amount of likes/dislikes they have.

That's one of the reasons why I don't like reddit especially since it leads to the creation of echo chamber subforums where any opinions considered "wrong" would literally get downvoted to obscurity.

It seems hard to separate conformation bias from appreciation of interesting ideas.

How could you do that? Or is this a non-issue?

Quoting jgill

6
It seems hard to separate conformation bias from appreciation of interesting ideas.

That is a difficult element to examine. One cannot claim a universal answer for everybody because what is interesting to some people is boring to others.

So, maybe there is a an objective world that is what it is but we will never be able to talk about it without confusion because of the way we talk about things.

Quoting bert1

Noted, but what do you think of the reputation system?

I do apologize for the delay in my response to you, I just saw it now.
As far as what I think of the "reputation system"?
I think the spirit of the idea is genuine but I am uncomfortable calling it a reputation system. Social scores only tell me who knows how to game the system and has cheerleaders around them. Much like President Trump and @Hanover there are always people who bet for the horse to win while betting the horse will lose in the same race. They could each be right but I have doubt about them both winning the race and I definitely would stay away from the trifecta.

Would anyone be interested in cookies if we make cookies in July again? :eyes:
If so, pm me your address and I'll see what I can do to make sure you get a dose of love from my ranch to yours. :hearts:
International is included on this unless it's cheaper for me to fly me there with the cookies. There might be a sur charge on that one. :flower: